Take into the account that the reverse process is going on, too, and new dialects are emerging. Besides, personally I hold little value of languages whose mental models [as you call them] aren't good enough to help their nation function efficiently, for trade and for war. There is a reason they are going extinct, after all.
Disclaimer: I am a native speaker of a pretty ancient language with the current user base of about 10 million.
From the linked article:
If you use Blogger, Google knows what you're passionate about. If you use Blogger, everyone interested in your persona knows what you're passionate about. That's the damn point of blogging.
Personally I find this announcement much more interesting and relevant to the goal of getting Linux on the mobiles. In short: Trolltech has made available the telephony service, DRM and SaX available under GPLv2, thus making Qtopia Phone edition completely free. Besides, they have ported Qtopia to Neo 1973. This is most certainly very good news!
using spam to try and convince users of the necessity of using Tor for there communications. It took me a second to understand what the author meant. Spell-checking, anyone?
Speaking on topic, I'd like to correct one of the previous posters: it's not a mere variation on the "Use XXX Bank" theme; as far as I understand, Tor has been picked among tons of other software that could be infected and supplied to users because it helps the spammers in covering their tracks, since their email is routed through Tor now.
But BSD is a license and it cannot be legally removed from a licensed file. No it can, since the file is dual-licensed. Take Qt, for instance: it is available under two licenses, GPL and QPL, which directly contradict each other. And you are only capable of accepting one of them, and that's exactly what you have to do. Once I accepted the GPL, there wasn't a single mention of QPL in the source code anywhere. How difficult can that be?!
There's Qt Jambi for you: here. Seriously, Qt is plainly the best toolkit around, and with Jambi, it has come to Java, too. Much more useful than Swing, IMO.
I think there is a misunderstanding on the submitter's side. Here's what NASA says:
The ultraviolet image shows a gigantic shock wave, called a bow shock, in front of the star, and an enormous, 13-light-year-long trail of turbulence in its wake. Further they note that this effect is much like the supesonic shock wave and the turbulent tail created by a bullet. The appropriate image is also available at the NASA site. I couldn't find a statement that it's fast as a bullet [which, as the parent rightfully shows, would be ridiculous].
I can't shake off the feeling that something is going on awfully wrong here. I fear that Microsoft will pull a dirty stunt soon that will turn this small victory against us. Their arsenal is quite abundant with such tricks.
I believe that the mass extinction threat, be it military or biological is vastly overestimated. The humanity has survived countless wars and plague outbreaks which put it on the brink of extinction, only to quickly replace its losses with resistant specimens. I do not suppose that the situation will change any time soon. As for colonies in general: you see, a planetary colony should never be allowed to develop enough to support itself with food, fuel or any other critical material, because controlling such a remote colony is next to impossible without keeping your hand on its air supply. And the last thing any Terran government, like the United States, would want to see is a powerful disobedient opponent on another planet, because it renders its tremendous military might inapplicable, and might even give the colony an upper hand.
Why Mars? Why not Antarctic glaciers, Gobi desert, Kazakh wastelands, Belarus swamps and Alaskan tundra? Hey, the good old Earth has places that model the conditions of pretty much every planet you can imagine [hazardous included], except perhaps gas giants. Now, where do I go to have the illusion of being on the ancient Foth of Avalars...
There is no "measurable background"; experimental results rarely can tell signal from noise. You just have a ton of homogenous data [for each channel], and have to develop a model or pick an existing one to explain it. The model allows you to say "this is what we seek, and this is something we're not interested in".
The assumption that you can declare the data measured while the beam was off to be equal to the background noise of your experiment is incorrect. The beam may generate a lot of different stuff, besides the specific particle that you are looking for, all of which should be considered noise.
I fail to track why the widely accepted practice of crediting staff who made non-critical but important contributions indicates pathetic state of modern science.
"Background fluctuation" or "something other"? Can't decide? In this case, these two terms are interchangeable.
Suppose you have an alternative process with a signature similar to the one you're seeking within your precision limit. You calculate the probabilities of both and decided that the second one is X orders of magnitude less probable.
And now compare it with the probability of a process normally not within the scope you seek, but which is close enough and besides is pretty probable to happen. Now, calculate the probability of it producing a signature close to the one you seek, and see how many times less probable it is than your primary channel of reaction.
You must admit that while the nature of these noises is different, the end result is comparable both by its effect and by its probability. Disclaimer: the above is purely theoretical and can be applied to any experiment, rather than being my analysis of this particular one.
Reading the three last posts of yours, I get a strong feeling that you're in bad mood today or have little idea about modern physics in general.
You mean, like in "the larger the number of soldiers, the more pathetic an army is"? Don't be naive; not a single scientist, even if he is qualified in absolutely everything known to man, will be able to design something as complex as the LHC during his lifetime if he's working alone. Many specialists, probably diverse, will be needed to manage that tremendous amount of job in acceptable terms.
How can one demand license fees for something they don't have the right to license in the first place (in case of Mac OS X, which AFAIK does not allow redistribution)?
Slashdot Mirror
Hungry Hydralisk
Besides, it used to translate 'Peter Norton' to Russian as 'Eugene Kaspersky'. :) This trick has been taken down already.
Disclaimer: I am a native speaker of a pretty ancient language with the current user base of about 10 million.
Personally I find this announcement much more interesting and relevant to the goal of getting Linux on the mobiles. In short: Trolltech has made available the telephony service, DRM and SaX available under GPLv2, thus making Qtopia Phone edition completely free. Besides, they have ported Qtopia to Neo 1973. This is most certainly very good news!
Speaking on topic, I'd like to correct one of the previous posters: it's not a mere variation on the "Use XXX Bank" theme; as far as I understand, Tor has been picked among tons of other software that could be infected and supplied to users because it helps the spammers in covering their tracks, since their email is routed through Tor now.
There's Qt Jambi for you: here. Seriously, Qt is plainly the best toolkit around, and with Jambi, it has come to Java, too. Much more useful than Swing, IMO.
Why, making a startup and earning the said $1million by yourself is no longer an option? Just curious.
I can't shake off the feeling that something is going on awfully wrong here. I fear that Microsoft will pull a dirty stunt soon that will turn this small victory against us. Their arsenal is quite abundant with such tricks.
I believe that the mass extinction threat, be it military or biological is vastly overestimated. The humanity has survived countless wars and plague outbreaks which put it on the brink of extinction, only to quickly replace its losses with resistant specimens. I do not suppose that the situation will change any time soon. As for colonies in general: you see, a planetary colony should never be allowed to develop enough to support itself with food, fuel or any other critical material, because controlling such a remote colony is next to impossible without keeping your hand on its air supply. And the last thing any Terran government, like the United States, would want to see is a powerful disobedient opponent on another planet, because it renders its tremendous military might inapplicable, and might even give the colony an upper hand.
Why Mars? Why not Antarctic glaciers, Gobi desert, Kazakh wastelands, Belarus swamps and Alaskan tundra? Hey, the good old Earth has places that model the conditions of pretty much every planet you can imagine [hazardous included], except perhaps gas giants. Now, where do I go to have the illusion of being on the ancient Foth of Avalars...
ABBYY FineReader is excellent OCR software, perhaps the best of its kind. Alas, Windows-only.
While what you say is true, it doesn't negate the fact that there is a browser with rendering engine common with Safari.
Or rather, wrap it in a Qt UI. Oh, wait. Such a thing already exists, Konqueror the name.
There is no "measurable background"; experimental results rarely can tell signal from noise. You just have a ton of homogenous data [for each channel], and have to develop a model or pick an existing one to explain it. The model allows you to say "this is what we seek, and this is something we're not interested in".
The assumption that you can declare the data measured while the beam was off to be equal to the background noise of your experiment is incorrect. The beam may generate a lot of different stuff, besides the specific particle that you are looking for, all of which should be considered noise.
I fail to track why the widely accepted practice of crediting staff who made non-critical but important contributions indicates pathetic state of modern science.
- Suppose you have an alternative process with a signature similar to the one you're seeking within your precision limit. You calculate the probabilities of both and decided that the second one is X orders of magnitude less probable.
-
And now compare it with the probability of a process normally not within the scope you seek, but which is close enough and besides is pretty probable to happen. Now, calculate the probability of it producing a signature close to the one you seek, and see how many times less probable it is than your primary channel of reaction.
You must admit that while the nature of these noises is different, the end result is comparable both by its effect and by its probability. Disclaimer: the above is purely theoretical and can be applied to any experiment, rather than being my analysis of this particular one.Reading the three last posts of yours, I get a strong feeling that you're in bad mood today or have little idea about modern physics in general.
You mean, like in "the larger the number of soldiers, the more pathetic an army is"? Don't be naive; not a single scientist, even if he is qualified in absolutely everything known to man, will be able to design something as complex as the LHC during his lifetime if he's working alone. Many specialists, probably diverse, will be needed to manage that tremendous amount of job in acceptable terms.
"Research is the transformation of money to knowledge. Innovation is the transformation of knowledge to money."
Dr. Hans Meixner.
How can one demand license fees for something they don't have the right to license in the first place (in case of Mac OS X, which AFAIK does not allow redistribution)?